Trial reportJournal of the American Dental Association (1939)2021
A clinical investigation of dental evacuation systems in reducing aerosols.
Trial report in Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concern about the risk of aerosol contamination from ultrasonic scaler: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of Combining an Extraoral High-Volume Evacuator with Preprocedural Mouth Rinsing in Reducing Aerosol Contamination Produced by Ultrasonic Scaling.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Aerosol-generating procedures and associated control/mitigation measures: Position paper from the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association and the American Dental Hygienists' Association.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2024Review
- Reducing microbial airborne contamination and particulate matter using different oral suctions in dental clinic: A randomized controlled clinical trial.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of interventions to reduce aerosol generation in dental environments: A systematic review.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Review
- Article
- Characterization of Ag-Ion Releasing Zeolite Filled 3D Printed Resins.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Article
- Aerosol reduction efficacy of different intra-oral suction devices during ultrasonic scaling and high-speed handpiece use.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- Indoor Air Quality Evaluation Using Mechanical Ventilation and Portable Air Purifiers in an Academic Dentistry Clinic during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Greece.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Efficacy of Dental Barriers in Aerosols and Splatters Reduction During an Ultrasonic Scaling: AnJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe route of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has challenged dentistry to improve the safety for patients and the dental team during various treatment procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of dental evacuation systems in reducing aerosols during oral prophylactic procedures in a large clinical setting.
methodsThis was a single-center, controlled clinical trial using a split-mouth design. A total of 93 student participants were recruited according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Aerosol samples were collected on blood agar plates that were placed around the clinic at 4 treatment periods: baseline, high-volume evacuation (HVE), combination (HVE and intraoral suction device), and posttreatment. Student operators were randomized to perform oral prophylaxis using ultrasonic scalers on 1 side of the mouth, using only HVE suction for the HVE treatment period and then with the addition of an intraoral suction device for the combination treatment period. Agar plates were collected after each period and incubated at 37 °C for 48 hours. Colony-forming unit (CFU) counts were determined using an automatic colony counter.
resultsThe use of a combination of devices resulted in significant reductions in CFUs compared with the use of the intraoral suction device alone (P < .001). The highest amounts of CFUs were found in the operating zone and on patients during both HVE and combination treatment periods.
conclusionsWithin limitations of this study, the authors found significant reductions in the amount of microbial aerosols when both HVE and an intraoral suction device were used. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The combination of HVE and intraoral suction devices significantly decreases microbial aerosols during oral prophylaxis procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.